AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 124 (Hansard, 25 October 1990)

§ Lord McCluskey
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 124A. As a matter of explanation, I feel I must point out that unfortunately the printer has not printed the line numbers on the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 124. Therefore, one simply has to count down to line 5. The provision as contained in the proposed new clause is to the effect that when an application is made under Clause 23—that is, the barefoot pleader application—the body concerned may apply to the Lord President and to the 1598 Secretary of State for permission to surrender any entitlement of its members to acquire rights to conduct litigation. For example, if the British Association of Social Workers, the patent agents, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, or whoever were to become a body with such an entitlement for its members subsequently and wished to surrender it, it may do so.
There may be certain members who disagree with what the body is doing or with what the members who have exercised the right of audience are doing. They may wish to have the entitlement surrendered. They may think that it is contrary to the interests of the body that people should be so entitled; that it is contrary to their interests to be discredited, as it were, by association with people who are not competent to carry out the job; and that it is contrary to the interests of justice. In that context, therefore, it seems reasonable to confer upon the members of the body the same right to apply to the Lord President and to the Secretary of State as the body itself has. I say that because we do not know—indeed, we have never been able to discover this—what is meant by the expression, used in Clause 23 and, I believe, in the English Clause 2, any professional or other body". The ejusdem generis rule does not apply and therefore any professional or other body means any body which is a professional body and any body which is not a professional body; in other words, it means any body. Therefore, if the body concerned is the British Association of Social Workers, which is a British institution, it may take a long time before it gets round to dealing with questions of surrendering the entitlement. It may be that the members in a particular area will seek to move in advance of the body's coming to a decision. Therefore, for those reasons, what is proposed appears to be a significant improvement to the amendment proposed by the Commons.
Moved, That Amendment No. 124A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 124, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)

§ Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
My Lords, there is not very much that I can say by way of expansion. If the body itself wishes to wind up the right to conduct litigation—which is to lose its rights of audience—it would seem appropriate that it should do so as a whole. I can only repeat that if it is the case of an individual or individuals who wish to leave the body and surrender their rights of audience, it would seem to be a matter entirely between them and the body which governs their activities.

§ Lord McCluskey
My Lords, plainly I am not making an impression upon the noble and learned Lord. I suppose that ultimately that must be because even in those cases—and I believe that this is one of them—where there is merit in the proposal, he would find himself in difficulty if he were required to go back to another place and ask it to accept amendments to amendments which it had already made. Therefore, I fear that to a real extent, whether we are dealing with important amendments—this may be both an important and a worthwhile one—or trying to remedy 1599 mistakes, we shall make no headway. It is a great pity because it means that in a sense we are wasting our time. I shall not waste any more of your Lordships' time on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.